Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Keep CounterPunch ad free. Support our annual fund drive today!

Meet the Glassholes


It shows a distinct lack of imagination. Therein lies a paradox of technology, and its specific application to human needs or wants: the more sophisticated it becomes, the less sophisticated it assumes humans are. If Google Glass is anything to go by, we are not merely a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but short of the picnic altogether.

Google Glass is the camera of Twitter and the profane eye of Big Brother. It renders its users augmented reality cyborgs while engaging that very reality. It is considered the neat, spare, minimalist acquisition for the busy modern tech freak using “modular design”. But the crux of the matter, as ever, is that you do not need to be a tech freak to love it. That, at any rate, is what Google is hoping for.

The device has already made news in various ways. When, for instance, will that stealthy click be made to take a photo of unsuspecting targets? Does it merely take a wink to do so? The website advertising Glass is swank and chic, as one would expect, and totally innocuous. Don the minimalist computer wear. “Say ‘take a picture’ to take a picture.” Then, “Record what you see. Hands-free.” You can share what you see, live of course. Directions can be seen “right in front of you”. “Speak to send a message.” It can translate your voice.

According to Google co-founder Sergey Brin, the Google Glass concept improves on the experience of the “smartphone”, yet another awkward and inaccurate term to begin with. Indeed, Brin has had harsh words for that phone technology, seeing it as “emasculating”. “You’re standing around and just rubbing this featureless piece of glass” (CNET, Feb 27, 2013). Brin’s rub free fantasy, which he hopes to make real, is to enable information to surface for individuals even before they ask for it. Google Glass “is the first form factor that can deliver that vision.”

Defenders of the device, such as blogger Robert Scobie, see Google Glass as making Google “an assistant to your life.” He sees no problem with the project. “It tries to assist my life and get ahead of me, and think about things I need to see” (Guardian, Jun 5, 2013). This leaves an open question as to how one sees – there are, after all, numerous ways of seeing.

Ways of seeing are already getting the glassholes into trouble. According to the Gadgeteer (Jan 20), a man from Columbus, Ohio found himself in trouble using Google Glass at the cinema. He was watching, with his wife, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. While he was sporting the device, he claims it was switched off.

An hour into the film, he was nabbed, ostensibly by DHS officials. Their suspicion: he has been using Google Glass to illegally tape the film. Then, the questions, some of them along the line of “what does Google ask of me in exchange of Glass, how much is Google paying me, who is my boss and why I am recording the movie.” A sad state of affairs overall, be it the unimaginative Ohioan, or the unimaginative authorities.

Earlier this month, a driver faced traffic violations for speeding under California’s vehicle code. She got the second ticket after the California Highway Patrol officer noted she was using Google Glass. The traffic citation against Cecilia Abadie under Section 27602, which bans video screens in the view of the driver, was dismissed by a court commissioner in San Diego claiming that “he could find no evidence that the device was in use while Abadie was driving, according to several news reports” (PC World, Jan 17).

Much of the run off from Brin’s “emasculating” remark on smartphones might have shed light, however consciously, on another aspect of the technology. Criticism has been forthcoming of the device: that it is being marketed as a “man gadget”. Gender language is replete in the Silicon Valley innovation scheme – these are toys for boys, and the boys like it.

The latest app called “Sex with Google Glass” attempts to introduce erotica into the Glass experience. It assumes that sexual actors are also, at heart, sexual voyeurs. But it also suggests a form of activity that is staged. (Imagine lovemaking sections with “OK Glass, the lights”.) The advertising theme behind it is also gendered, involving a good deal of sexed assumptions. That’s advertising for you. As ever, the pragmatic aspect is lacking – presumably, the physical sex takes place slowly (the devices seem fragile).

Then comes the storage facility. The activities can be recorded and viewed at different angles, potentially enabling you to see your sexual counterpart in full dimension, but the video itself “disappears in 5 hours”. Actors can become voyeurs. The advertising language there is striking: “You’ll be able to watch your videos for 5 hours until they are deleted forever. That’s for all the ladies out there.” Presumably, the ladies have nothing to do for the five hours following coitus – or rather, nothing to fear, or hope for, in the context of revenge porn. Stop living, start interrupting.

Some commentators strain to see something interesting in it. For Adi Robinson writing in The Verge (Jan 20), the entire advertising premise behind the application is skewed. If Sex with Google Glass is evidently designed to show “the whole picture”, a totalised reality of lovers in action, then the choice of images for the app is crude. What she sees, or what he sees, are limited projections.

Robinson is reminded of those lines, problematic as they are, from art critic and novelist John Berger, writing in 1972: “Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.” He sees his lover’s back. She so happens to be seeing herself as well – from the neck down. This would surely encourage users to take the glasses off by this stage.

With such worn computer devices, the looming question is how far Google will be allowed into private, let alone public life. The company has not only taken a mile, but virtually everything. Is Google really the valet to our needs, or a dictator of ideas? Should Brin’s vision transpire, the information continuum may find itself changing roles: what, or who, will be doing the thinking about information? It certainly won’t be the glassholes, who risk becoming the modern era’s feckless automatons.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine


Weekend Edition
October 21, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Wight
Hillary Clinton and the Brutal Murder of Gaddafi
Diana Johnstone
Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition in a Nutshell
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Trump’s Naked and Hillary’s Dead
John W. Whitehead
American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up to a Terrifying Election Season
Stephen Cooper
Hell on Earth in Alabama: Inside Holman Prison
Patrick Cockburn
13 Years of War: Mosul’s Frightening and Uncertain Future
Rob Urie
Name the Dangerous Candidate
Pepe Escobar
The Aleppo / Mosul Riddle
David Rosen
The War on Drugs is a Racket
Sami Siegelbaum
Once More, the Value of the Humanities
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
Neve Gordon
Israel’s Boycott Hypocrisy
Mark Hand
Of Pipelines and Protest Pens: When the Press Loses Its Shield
Victor Wallis
On the Stealing of U.S. Elections
Michael Hudson
The Return of the Repressed Critique of Rentiers: Veblen in the 21st century Rentier Capitalism
Brian Cloughley
Drumbeats of Anti-Russia Confrontation From Washington to London
Howard Lisnoff
Still Licking Our Wounds and Hoping for Change
Brian Gruber
Iraq: There Is No State
Peter Lee
Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism
Stanley L. Cohen
Equality and Justice for All, It Seems, But Palestinians
Steve Early
In Bay Area Refinery Town: Berniecrats & Clintonites Clash Over Rent Control
Kristine Mattis
All Solutions are Inadequate: Why It Doesn’t Matter If Politicians Mention Climate Change
Peter Linebaugh
Ron Suny and the Marxist Commune: a Note
Andre Vltchek
Sudan, Africa and the Mosaic of Horrors
Keith Binkly
The Russians Have Been Hacking Us For Years, Why Is It a Crisis Now?
Jonathan Cook
Adam Curtis: Another Manager of Perceptions
Ted Dace
The Fall
Sheldon Richman
Come and See the Anarchy Inherent in the System
Susana Hurlich
Hurricane Matthew: an Overview of the Damages in Cuba
Dave Lindorff
Screwing With and Screwing the Elderly and Disabled
Chandra Muzaffar
Cuba: Rejecting Sanctions, Sending a Message
Dennis Kucinich
War or Peace?
Joseph Natoli
Seething Anger in the Post-2016 Election Season
Jack Rasmus
Behind The 3rd US Presidential Debate—What’s Coming in 2017
Ron Jacobs
A Theory of Despair?
Gilbert Mercier
Globalist Clinton: Clear and Present Danger to World Peace
James A Haught
Many Struggles Won Religious Freedom
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Dear Fellow Gen Xers: Let’s Step Aside for the Millennials
Uri Avnery
The Peres Funeral Ruckus
Tom Clifford
Duterte’s Gambit: the Philippines’s Pivot to China
Reyes Mata III
Scaling Camelot’s Walls: an Essay Regarding Donald Trump
Raouf Halaby
Away from the Fray: From Election Frenzy to an Interlude in Paradise
James McEnteer
Art of the Feel
David Yearsley
Trump and Hitchcock in the Age of Conspiracies
Charles R. Larson
Review: Sjón’s “Moonstone: the Boy Who Never Was”